Exactly one month until my next summit attempt. I better get my shit together.
How many black jackets is too many?
“This unorthodox (& partly illegal) journey began 9 years ago, back in 2004.
It was during that year that photographer Mike Brodie would throw caution to the wind and hitchhike numerous US freight trains documenting the life of a group of his friends – wayward teenagers, adventure seekers & high school runaways. From taking in the view from the rooftops of train carriages to sleeping amongst the rough banks of the railroads themselves, Brodie was there capturing an incredible moment in time.
It all began when Brodie initially found a discarded Polaroid camera tucked behind a car seat, that was the very moment that his passion and love-affair with photography started. To date his adventures have seem him travel over 50K miles, snatched a lift from 170+ long haul freight trains and passed through 46 US States in the process.
We’ve rarely seen photographs with such character and soul. There’s a rawness to Brodie’s work, a reflection one would think on the ramshackle nature of his environment. The images below were shot using 35mm film, providing a rich tapestry to his exhilarating and unique journeys.
You can see more from Mike’s compelling collection via his official website.”
It feels only natural to reread Pensées after watching My Night at Maud’s (which I’ve seen countless times). Never a bad idea to revisit Pascal I don’t think.
Anne Catherine Lacroix shot by Mario Sorrenti for Jil Sander F/W 2000
Barbara Kruger’s never really talked about Supreme, the skate company who’s been ripping off her ideas and prints letter for letter, color for color, for their red-and-white logo, which you have seen, because it is everywhere.
I emailed her casually to ask her about this. And today, she got back to me, and gave a candid statement on the matter of Supreme for the first time, ever, really. By emailing me a blank email, with an attachment. Which you can see above.
Self-Portrait, c. 1920Gelatin-silver print, 6 1/4 x 4 11/16 in. (15.88 x 11.91 cm)
“HELL is a city much like London,” opined Percy Bysshe Shelley in 1819. Modern academics agree. Last year Dutch researchers showed that city dwellers have a 21% higher risk of developing anxiety disorders than do their calmer rural countrymen, and a 39% higher risk of developing mood disorders. But exactly how the inner workings of the urban and rural minds cause this difference has remained obscure—until now. A study just published inNature by Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg of the University of Heidelberg and his colleagues has used a scanning technique called functional magnetic-resonance imaging (fMRI) to examine the brains of city dwellers and country bumpkins when they are under stress.
In Dr Meyer-Lindenberg’s first experiment, participants lying with their heads in a scanner took maths tests that they were doomed to fail (the researchers had designed success rates to be just 25-40%). To make the experience still more humiliating, the team provided negative feedback through headphones, all the while checking participants for indications of stress, such as high blood pressure.
The urbanites’ general mental health did not differ from that of their provincial counterparts. However, their brains dealt with the stress imposed by the experimenters in different ways. These differences were noticeable in two regions: the amygdalas and the perigenual anterior cingulate cortex (pACC). The amygdalas are a pair of structures, one in each cerebral hemisphere, that are found deep inside the brain and are responsible for assessing threats and generating the emotion of fear. The pACC is part of the cerebral cortex (again, found in both hemispheres) that regulates the amygdalas.
People living in the countryside had the lowest levels of activity in their amygdalas. Those living in towns had higher levels. City dwellers had the highest. Not that surprising, to those of a Shelleyesque disposition. In the case of the pACC, however, what mattered was not where someone was living now, but where he or she was brought up. The more urban a person’s childhood, the more active his pACC, regardless of where he was dwelling at the time of the experiment.
The amygdalas thus seem to respond to the here-and-now whereas the pACC is programmed early on, and does not react in the same, flexible way as the amygdalas. Second-to-second changes in its activity might, though, be expected to be correlated with changes in the amygdalas, because of its role in regulating them. fMRI allows such correlations to be measured.
In the cases of those brought up in the countryside, regardless of where they now live, the correlations were as expected. For those brought up in cities, however, these correlations broke down. The regulatory mechanism of the native urbanite, in other words, seems to be out of kilter. Further evidence, then, for Shelley’s point of view. Moreover, it is also known that the pACC-amygdala link is often out of kilter in schizophrenia, and that schizophrenia is more common among city dwellers than country folk. Dr Meyer-Lindenberg is careful not to claim that his results show the cause of this connection. But they might.
Dr Meyer-Lindenberg and his team conducted several subsequent experiments to check their findings. They asked participants to complete more maths tests—and also tests in which they mentally rotated an object—while investigators chided them about their performance. The results matched those of the first test. They also studied another group of volunteers, who were given stress-free tasks to complete. These experiments showed no activity in either the amygdalas or the pACC, suggesting that the earlier results were indeed the result of social stress rather than mental exertion.
As is usually the case in studies of this sort, the sample size was small (and therefore not as robust as might be desirable) and the result showed an association, rather than a definite, causal relationship. That association is, nevertheless, interesting. Living in cities brings many benefits, but Dr Meyer-Lindenberg’s work suggests that Shelley and his fellow Romantics had at least half a point.
Bibi Andersson & Liv Ulmann in Persona (1966)
For Piero Fornasetti, a single idea provided enough inspiration to create infinite variations. In fact, much of his work involved constant evolutions of specific themes. By allowing his imagination to roam freely. Fornasetti was able to constantly reinvent or reinterpret an image.
Of these themes, the most recurrent are: the sun, playing cards, harlequins, hands, self-portraits. But the most famous, the image that inspired Fornasetti to coin the title ‘Tema e Variazioni’, is the enigmatic face of a woman: the opera singer Lina Cavalieri.
He found that now iconic face as he leafed through a 19th century French magazine and became fascinated. Taking her as much as a muse and as a motif, he would return to Lina Cavalieri’s face again and again throughout his career. The archetypal classic female features, and enigmatic expression of Lina Cavalieri became Fornasetti’s most frequently used template and upon which he based more than 350 variations.
Lina Cavalieri’s face, explained Piero Fornasetti, was another archetype – a quintessentially beautiful and classic image, like a Greek statue, enigmatic like the ‘Gioconda’ and therefore able to take shape into the idea that was slowly building in his mind. It was this formal, graphic appeal (rather than Lina Cavalieri’s celebrity) that demanded such loyalty and inspired the spontaneous and ceaseless creativity of Fornasetti. For him, this face became the ultimate enduring motif. With great modesty all these works were reproduced on a series of everyday objects like the plate. Tema e Variazioni shows its variations playing with one idea.
Shopping on Yahoo Japan will be the end of me.